DANIEL J. MECKLER, D/B/A M. & R. DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
HECHT RUBBER CORPORATION, FORMERLY HECHT RUBBER CO., AND ALSO FORMERLY KNOWN AS HECHT RUBBER COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner sought a writ of common law certiorari to review an interlocutory order vacating a summary judgment in his favor. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that certiorari was unavailable because petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal from final judgment, and there was no exceptional circumstance justifying the extraordinary writ.
A writ of common law certiorari is not available to review an order vacating a summary judgment because the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal from a final judgment and no exceptional circumstance exists. Although the grounds for vacatur may have been insufficient in law, other meritorious grounds may be shown on appeal from final judgment.
“Where it clearly appears that there is no full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment available to the petitioner, this court will consider granting the writ, as where the lower court acts without and in excess of its jurisdiction, or the order does not conform to essential requirements of law and may cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate.”
Establishes the strict standard for granting certiorari review of interlocutory orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe circuit court had entered a final summary judgment in favor of petitioner Meckler. Upon petition for rehearing, the trial court entered an order s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of common law-certiorari to the Circuit Court of Duval: County to review an order entered upon petition for rehearing, which order set aside a final summary judgment previously-entered in favor of plaintiff.
The scope of common law certio-rari is strictly limited and is applied to review an interlocutory order in an action at law only under exceptional circumstances. The rule is concisely stated in Brooks v. Owens, 97 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1957). viz.:
“Where it clearly appears that there is no full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment available to the petitioner, this court will consider granting the writ, as where the-lower court acts without and in excess of its jurisdiction, or the order does not conform to essential requirements of law *187and may cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate.”
Petitioner’s prayer for relief seeks from ■this court a mandate directing the trial court to set aside its order vacating the •summary final judgment. Such action would result in directing the trial court to enter a summary final judgment. In Pullman Company v. Fleishel, 101 So.2d 188 (Fla.App. 1st, 1958), this court stated:
“Our research has failed to reveal any authority, and none has been cited by pe-titioner, which authorizes the granting •of certiorari to review an order denying summary judgment in an action at law. It is indisputable that the necessity of •defending any legal action can he bur-densome and vexatious. Such, however, is one of the hazards of living and doing business under a system of free enterprise in which one who conceives him•self to be injured is privileged to seek redress in a court of law.
“Our Supreme Court has denied certio-rari to review a trial court’s order overruling a demurrer to a declaration seeking damages at law. As in the case under consideration, the petitioner urged that the challenged order did not conform to the essential requirements of law, and that to require petitioner to defend would be expensive, time consuming and harassing.”
Although it might well be that the grounds recited in the trial court’s order vacating its summary final judgment are insufficient in law, other meritorious grounds may be shown upon an appeal from a final judgment.
Finding no material injury for which petitioner will not be able to remedy by appeal, we decline to issue the writ.
Certiorari denied.
RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tucker v. Resha, 610 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Constr. Co., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (fact that no immediate remedy by appeal from non-final order was available did not of itself indicate common-law certiorari was available); Meckler v. Hecht Rubber Corp., 190 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (denying certiorari to review order setting aside final summary judgment). Orders denying summary judgment “are particularly unlikely to be reviewed by certiorari.” Haddad, “The Common Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida,” 24 U.Fla…
-
R. J. Brown, Inc. v. Seminerio, 246 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…s premature for this court to evaluate properly an interlocutory order denying a motion for summary judgment. Our determination has support in the following decisions of our sister appellate courts: Meckler v. Hecht Rubber Corporation, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 186; Doby v. Griffin, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 873; Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 188. Accordingly, certiorari is denied without prejudice to appropriate appellate review subsequent to final judgment. Certiorari denied. WALDEN…
-
Hecht Rubber Corp. v. Meckler, 208 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)